Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
defense and other key priorities. we feel it, i know you feel it. i want to focus on four areas where i think we are closer together than we might think as an encouragement to finding compromise. first, we should acknowledge the 2014 budget numbers are not that different. the senate sets discretionary trillion.t $1.058 senate number is 1.508. the difference is about 2.5%. i think you would argue it is smaller, because the republicans would argue the senate numbers might be artificially high because we assume there would be no continuation of sequester. we assume the house number is artificially low. so i think the real difference is about 1.5%. i can't believe we're going to miss an opportunity to do something right for the nation, for our economy, because we can't close a difference in 2014 of 1.5%. we are closer than we might think in 2014. number two, we should all agree that growing the economy should be the primary goal. the major test of a successful budget is not inc. on a page, or even the gdp to debt ratio. it is whether a government spending plan helps produce a growing econom
and replace sequestration in different wales. the house budget fully replaces the defense cut, lists the b.c.a. cap, and pays for that by cutting from key domestic vements -- investments. the senate budget pays for that with an equal mix of spending cuts and revenue caused by wasteful tax loopholes that benefit the wealthiest americans and corporations. so getting a bipartisan deal to replace quest racial is going to require compromise. there is no way around it. i am going into this budget conference ready to agree to some tough spending cuts that unlike the quester -- sequester caps that disappear in 2022, will be locked into law. i know there are some republicans that would be interested in swapping some of the infish and damaging sequester cuts with programs that would save many multiples of cuts over the decades. i'm ready to listen to their ideas. as long as they are fair for seen yoirs and their families, i'm ready to make some concessions to get a deal. commowmies runs both ways. while we scour programs to find responsible savings, republicans are also going to work with us to scou
we learn about the threat is something that is necessary and important to the defense of this country. we see the threats that come in to this nation. see what a foreign intelligence agency is expected to see. prior to 9-11, we had no way of collecting those dots. nsa would see one side and the fbi the other. how can we connect these dots and do it in the least intrusive manner. , the senate, the executive branch, and the courts, we have programs to do that. you for yourthank comments. the statements you have made are greatly appreciated. and in then at nsa military still remembers that day and our commitment to those people that we will not forget. that does not mean we are going to trample on our civil liberties and privacy. how do we do both? wet is the constitution that all swore to uphold and defend. that's what we are doing. look at the program we have. citizens, everyone at this table is also an american citizen, have agreed we would take our personal data and put it into a lockbox. it would only be looked at when we had reasonable and articulable suspicion that we had connecti
to a national laboratory that is a critical player in the nation's defense, andal employ some of the brightest minds. i'm going to region excerpt from a letter -- i am going to read excerpt from a letter. these interactions are critical to keeping our researchers at the cutting edge in their field. he shares my desire to ensure that we are spending our taxpayer dollars wisely. offers suggestions for developing standards for evaluating and managing the cost and risk of conference spending. i have another letter that is from the center from association leadership. clearly, we do not want these mistakes made. we want to be careful that we do not minimize opportunities that make us a more efficient and effective government. i would ask to put this record of a letter. -- i would asked to put this letter in the record. >> so ordered. >> i hope that we leave this hearing with the kinds of issues that we have identified should never come before this committee or anyone else again. wise, smart,ing efficient, effective leadership in all of our public entities. we want the recommendations put in place ef
the defense department. concerning background checks for people with security clearance. this is two hours and 20 minutes. >> good morning. here we will come to order. welcome, one and all. on monday, september 16, a horrible tragedy unfolded the navy yard in washington, d.c. a very troubled individual took 12 lights in a senseless act of violence. the circumstances led to these tragedies are multidimensional. the issues raised by this tragedy such as the adequacy of our gun laws and the quality of mental health care are outside the purview of this committee. but as we have learned more about aaron alexis, a member of my colleagues and i have been asking each other why such a troubled, unstable individual possessed the security clearance from the u.s. government. granted a originally security clearance when he did not disclose his arrest record on his application. why did the investigator responsible for looking into that right up or a lexus had "retaliated by deflating someone's tires instead of disclosing that alexis had shot those tires. such violence how could've taken place in the nav
to the date before ricky alder's deadlty -- deadly attack, the department of defense testified to this committee, and this was in june of 2005, about the automated continuous evaluation system. and you all said you are going to continuously evaluate the background. mr. prioletti, in your written statement, you noted three years earlier in 2008 -- three years later, from the 2005 testimony you gave before his committee, -- this committee, president bush directed by his executive order that an individual who is -- shallfor classified be subject to continuous evaluation. that was an executive order back in 2008. i know we heard today, we're working on this. we heard we have an interagency working group. we're developing a concept of operations. i wrote this down. we're doing research. this has been going on now for a decade. a decade. if you testified in 2005, was going on in 2004, maybe more than a decade. so here we are. it's five years after the executive order, eight years after this committee heard about the plans, and we're dealing with the tragedy at the navy yard. i don't
of months ago that was on the defense appropriations bill. i teamed up with john conyers, and this is not a partisan issue . this is for republicans, democrats, libertarians, conservatives, liberals, everyone in between. when we fought for that amendment and we took to the house floor and had that debate, that was the proudest moment for me as an elected official. [cheers] >> we brought republicans and democrats together to speak on that amendment. we only had 7.5 minutes. that is the debate time they gave us, seven and a half minutes to talk about one of the most important issues facing our country and the world. we split it up between 11 or 12 people. on both sides of the aisle. i have to tell you that afterwards, after we had that debate, people were saying congratulations, they were proud of what we had done even though we had not had the vote yet. when the vote came down, it was close, it scared people. it scared the establishment in both parties. we have the president of the united states fighting against the amendment. it was the first time in his administration th
. will you i don't happen to think your reputation as a public ant needs a lot of defense. it is beyond reproach and exceptional and i thank you for it. i thank you as well for the the agencyin which moved to implement the reverse mortgage act. i think it helped a lot and finds about the fha. here, to coinmes a verb, complex of five -- comp lexify things. eight,stand that on page transfer says that the was triggered are required almost entirely as a result of the performance in the program? >> that is correct. true that the accounting transfer of $1.7 billion was calculated based on ofa prior to the enactment the reverse mortgage reform stabilization act and its implementation? is a little more difficult because i would just the 1.7 -- there is an element of the receipts that are low but alas, as it was soon to an earlier question. >> the implementation of the reverse mortgage stabilization reform act, i am getting the title all screwed up. but think you know what i'm referring to. >> just to be fair, the next time you will see numbers like this is when the president does the re-estima
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8